Probably not. Sucks. Doesn't change much IMO. I'm sure there were already laws making it illegal, so more laws aren't the answer. And Canada no less, which if I'm not mistaken, has much more strict gun laws._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Probably not. Sucks. Doesn't change much IMO. I'm sure there were already laws making it illegal, so more laws aren't the answer. And Canada no less, which if I'm not mistaken, has much more strict gun laws.

Canada has more strict gun laws, but it is still fairly easy to obtain a gun legally there. You can't get them at your local 7-11 like in the US, but you can get them without too much trouble.

Probably not. Sucks. Doesn't change much IMO. I'm sure there were already laws making it illegal, so more laws aren't the answer. And Canada no less, which if I'm not mistaken, has much more strict gun laws.

Canada has more strict gun laws, but it is still fairly easy to obtain a gun legally there. You can't get them at your local 7-11 like in the US, but you can get them without too much trouble.

Point stands. more guns wouldn't help.

Nah, point never stood to begin with.

A good guy with a gun doesn't stop a traffic accident either, and they kill far, far, far more innocent children -- so many more that the number killed by guns is negligible by comparison, but I don't you puling about making it more difficult to get and keep driving privileges, or preventing people from engaging in negligent or reckless driving behavior. Why is that? It's because your propaganda-spewing authoritarian collectivist puppet-masters haven't told you to pule about that; they've told you to pule about this. Fappity-fap; ZOMG. And the reason they haven't told to pule about this, but they have told you to pule about that, even though this causes far, far, far more harm is us much more avoidable (yes it is; we already have all the mechanisms in place), is because the reasons they actually want guns banned has absolutely nothing what so fucking ever to do with preventing harm to people. Open your mind.

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total

And the reason they haven't told to pule about this, but they have told you to pule about that, even though this causes far, far, far more harm is us much more avoidable (yes it is; we already have all the mechanisms in place), is because the reasons they actually want guns banned has absolutely nothing what so fucking ever to do with preventing harm to people. Open your mind.

"No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another." -- a Bill Concerning Slaves [1785] (Thomas Jefferson no less)_________________Always do the opposite of what SJWs say.

Obama played the race card. Hillary played the woman card. America played the Trump card.

Not a very good point. Fewer guns are unlikely to have an impact. You'd have to achieve zero guns, and even that might not be enough (people can still create their own -- without rifling, it isn't _that_ difficult)._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Not a very good point. Fewer guns are unlikely to have an impact. You'd have to achieve zero guns, and even that might not be enough (people can still create their own -- without rifling, it isn't _that_ difficult).

No, no. You can't fool him. He knows all about the U.S. He was a Canadian, after all. He's been to the U.S., and he's seen the guns where they have them in 7-11, sort of out of site from the street, just under that thing that keeps the hot dogs warm until drunk people on their way home from the bars eat them (and you have to have at least a slight Indian accent just to go in there, so it's foreign nationals doing it, completely without any government regulation). Yeah, he knows from first-hand experience how easy it is to get a gun in the U.S. You're not gonna put one over on him.

Probably not. Sucks. Doesn't change much IMO. I'm sure there were already laws making it illegal, so more laws aren't the answer. And Canada no less, which if I'm not mistaken, has much more strict gun laws.

Canada has more strict gun laws, but it is still fairly easy to obtain a gun legally there. You can't get them at your local 7-11 like in the US, but you can get them without too much trouble.

Point stands. more guns wouldn't help.

Nah, point never stood to begin with.

A good guy with a gun doesn't stop a traffic accident either, and they kill far, far, far more innocent children -- so many more that the number killed by guns is negligible by comparison, but I don't you puling about making it more difficult to get and keep driving privileges, or preventing people from engaging in negligent or reckless driving behavior. Why is that? It's because your propaganda-spewing authoritarian collectivist puppet-masters haven't told you to pule about that; they've told you to pule about this. Fappity-fap; ZOMG. And the reason they haven't told to pule about this, but they have told you to pule about that, even though this causes far, far, far more harm is us much more avoidable (yes it is; we already have all the mechanisms in place), is because the reasons they actually want guns banned has absolutely nothing what so fucking ever to do with preventing harm to people. Open your mind.

I am all for reducing harm done by cars. Any suggestions? I am ALL ears. I do know that cars could be a lot safer (mainly by taking them off the street. taking the bus is much safer).

according to these numbers (not necessarily reliable deaths by firearms (homicide, suicide and accidents) for 0-19 year olds is just under 1/2 the motor vehicle rate. Still appauling if you ask me.

But, by all means, we should reduce motor vehicle deaths. And deaths by the sacred gun too.

My point about more guns not helping, this gun wouldn't have been prevented by a good guy with a gun. A perp will always have the element of surprise.

according to these numbers (not necessarily reliable deaths by firearms (homicide, suicide and accidents) for 0-19 year olds is just under 1/2 the motor vehicle rate.

Those numbers, 6,683 motor vehicle/100,00 to 2,186 firearm/100,00 are just, ever so slightly, more than 3:1. Not nitpicking your choice of facts but I am assuming all posting here have a functional knowledge of math. Also by counting up to 19 years old they include the violence that Eric Holder was talking about 18 years ago. You know, the culturally inspired lethal violence in gangs and such.

according to these numbers (not necessarily reliable deaths by firearms (homicide, suicide and accidents) for 0-19 year olds is just under 1/2 the motor vehicle rate.

Those numbers, 6,683 motor vehicle/100,00 to 2,186 firearm/100,00 are just, ever so slightly, more than 3:1. Not nitpicking your choice of facts but I am assuming all posting here have a functional knowledge of math. Also by counting up to 19 years old they include the violence that Eric Holder was talking about 18 years ago. You know, the culturally inspired lethal violence in gangs and such.

Read my post before you question my math. As I stated, I included the suicide and unintentional injuries deaths by firearms. we are looking at a ratio of 3/6.6. not quite a half (as I stated), but significantly more than a third (45%).

according to these numbers (not necessarily reliable deaths by firearms (homicide, suicide and accidents) for 0-19 year olds is just under 1/2 the motor vehicle rate.

Those numbers, 6,683 motor vehicle/100,00 to 2,186 firearm/100,00 are just, ever so slightly, more than 3:1. Not nitpicking your choice of facts but I am assuming all posting here have a functional knowledge of math. Also by counting up to 19 years old they include the violence that Eric Holder was talking about 18 years ago. You know, the culturally inspired lethal violence in gangs and such.

Read my post before you question my math. As I stated, I included the suicide and unintentional injuries deaths by firearms. we are looking at a ratio of 3/6.6. not quite a half (as I stated), but significantly more than a third (45%).

Yeah, sorry. I was stuck on the homicide part. That's also why I included the numbers ...

I am all for reducing harm done by cars. Any suggestions? I am ALL ears.

No you're not. If you were, you'd be going into labor about this even more than "ZoMg the Guns!" Suddenly you're "all ears" about this, but a moment ago you were all mouth about that.

Don't pretend it's any harder to come up with ways to reduce motor-vehicle-related harm than firearm-related harm. Ban sports cars, put speed limiters on cars, be more restrictive of who can drive, make it illegal for anyone under 20 to drive with passengers unless there's an adult (30+) in the car, require more frequent periodic refresher training and testing, put cell phone jammers in vehicles that come on whenever they're moving, implement digital speed limts (vary based on conditions), reduce speed limits, put Big Brother compliance monitoring in cars, increase penalties for negligent operation and accidents, etc., etc. These are no-brainers, and any one of them alone would probably eliminate more harm than all the proposed firearm restrictions. Ánd that's just cars.

So, why are so-called progressives fapping so hard about guns while doing jack shit about other more serious issues (this was just one example)? You tell me. It's not rational. I think it's because they're unaware they're being used as puppets by people whose priority is not the well-being of people but establishing an authoritarian throat-hold on them. What other explanation could there be?

I am all for reducing harm done by cars. Any suggestions? I am ALL ears.

No you're not. If you were, you'd be going into labor about this even more than "ZoMg the Guns!" Suddenly you're "all ears" about this, but a moment ago you were all mouth about that.

The reason I am not "going into labour" about cars is the following rather simple statistic. The number of INTENTIONAL deaths with the use of a car is not that big. Compare that to guns.

Quote:

Don't pretend it's any harder to come up with ways to reduce motor-vehicle-related harm than firearm-related harm. Ban sports cars, put speed limiters on cars, be more restrictive of who can drive, make it illegal for anyone under 20 to drive with passengers unless there's an adult (30+) in the car, require more frequent periodic refresher training and testing, put cell phone jammers in vehicles that come on whenever they're moving, implement digital speed limts (vary based on conditions), reduce speed limits, put Big Brother compliance monitoring in cars, increase penalties for negligent operation and accidents, etc., etc. These are no-brainers, and any one of them alone would probably eliminate more harm than all the proposed firearm restrictions. Ánd that's just cars.

You guys have a pretty high homicide rate. I don't think any one of them alone will would do more good than eliminating firearms. But, I am all for many of them. Let's do it. Start with the least draconian and move on. Likely the biggest difference can be made by raising the driving age. Let's start there. You have my vote.

Quote:

So, why are so-called progressives fapping so hard about guns while doing jack shit about other more serious issues (this was just one example)? You tell me. It's not rational. I think it's because they're unaware they're being used as puppets by people whose priority is not the well-being of people but establishing an authoritarian throat-hold on them. What other explanation could there be?

I am all for reducing harm done by cars. Any suggestions? I am ALL ears.

No you're not. If you were, you'd be going into labor about this even more than "ZoMg the Guns!" Suddenly you're "all ears" about this, but a moment ago you were all mouth about that.

The reason I am not "going into labour" about cars is the following rather simple statistic. The number of INTENTIONAL deaths with the use of a car is not that big. Compare that to guns.

That's completely irrational. Preventable harm is preventable harm. Furthermore, if the fact that it's intentional has any significance, it's that the problem which needs to be addressed is behavioral, not hardware. Tell me I'm not making sense.

juniper wrote:

Quote:

Don't pretend it's any harder to come up with ways to reduce motor-vehicle-related harm than firearm-related harm. Ban sports cars, put speed limiters on cars, be more restrictive of who can drive, make it illegal for anyone under 20 to drive with passengers unless there's an adult (30+) in the car, require more frequent periodic refresher training and testing, put cell phone jammers in vehicles that come on whenever they're moving, implement digital speed limts (vary based on conditions), reduce speed limits, put Big Brother compliance monitoring in cars, increase penalties for negligent operation and accidents, etc., etc. These are no-brainers, and any one of them alone would probably eliminate more harm than all the proposed firearm restrictions. Ánd that's just cars.

You guys have a pretty high homicide rate. I don't think any one of them alone will would do more good than eliminating firearms. But, I am all for many of them. Let's do it. Start with the least draconian and move on. Likely the biggest difference can be made by raising the driving age. Let's start there. You have my vote.

Wait. All of a sudden we're talking about "homicide rate"? Are you trying to suggest that there's a relationship between guns and homicide rate? Because, if you are, you haven't established that. See, this goes back to "facts, logic, and scientific analysis", all of which says no such relationship exists.

Also, we're not talking about me, so I don't need your vote. We're talking about why you, and people like you, are all apeshit about "gun violence", when there are many other things causing much more harm which are much more easily changed. You still haven't explained that.

Quote:

So, why are so-called progressives fapping so hard about guns while doing jack shit about other more serious issues (this was just one example)? You tell me. It's not rational. I think it's because they're unaware they're being used as puppets by people whose priority is not the well-being of people but establishing an authoritarian throat-hold on them. What other explanation could there be?

criminal intent probably. progressives don't like that.[/quote]
Nonsense. Probably three-fourths of the crime in what you call "developed" countries is committed by what you would call "progressives".